Want A RINGing Endorsement? Sanction Dawson-Johnson II

[IMDAZED]

Agreed - I think holding the division hostage is exactly what Hops is doing. This kind of reminds me of Whitaker in the late 90's when you knew he had slipped but somehow was still sitting atop the p4p rankings. Jake is probably right as it's more than likely a respect thing. But for me, Chad is the man in the division.

[Iceta]

thank you sir. and i agree, there's nothing that says Hopkins doesn't in fact beat both of them. but it's tough to do... when you won't fight either one.

There was an interview on Leon's website with Hopkins and he sounds pretty disgruntled. I think he may be edging toward retirement. I try to put myself in the guy's shoes a little bit. I do think HBO is jerking him around. The guy is 44 years old and his life doesn't revolve around HBO's schedule. It's weird to me that HBO can't make a Hopkins-Adamek fight all the way until January, 2010. And on top of that, I've heard this rematch between Johnson and Dawson probably can't happen any sooner than early November. Hopkins doesn't have that time to wait around to fight these guys. He did act a little bit like a primadonna in the Adamek negotiations and that may have cost him though.

[vercingetorix3]

I almost stopped reading after the article mentioned Zsolt Erdei's name.

[JakeNDaBox]

It would be against their rules. They simply can't do that. #1 vs. #3 is not against their rules, so your comparison is inappropriate. You can't rewrite your rules for the sake of one fighter or one fight, you'd lose all credibility if you did that.

That's not what I'm asking, and I apologize if I didn't make my point clearer. I'm suggesting they drop Hopkins from the top spot, if not from the LHW rankings altogether. If you think about it, it's been more than a year since he fought anyone who's actually campaigned at LHW - Calzaghe, who moved up for their April '08 fight and then stayed put for the Jones fight later in the year.

By the time Dawson-Johnson II rolls around (possibly September, but more realistically November), Hopkins will have been inactive long enough and without another fight on the horizon to justify dropping him from the ranks, or at least below the top spot.

Doing so would then give you a fight between #1 and #2.

Basically, I'm asking The Ring to give Bernard a choice: either fight, or retire. Anything other than allowing him to sit on his ranking.

[JakeNDaBox]

wow, I took so long to reply, you actually deleted your message in that span. Sorry. But I hope you understood/-stand the point I was trying to make.

[Dave Rado]

By Jake Donovan - Let’s state this up front: The Ring’s champions and boxing’s true lineal champions aren’t always one and the same.

With that in mind, the magazine gets it right in throwing their support behind this weekend’s accidental heavyweight matchup between Wladimir Klitschko and Ruslan Chagaev. [details]

I think there's a bit of confusion here.

1) Bhop isn't The Ring champion, the title is vacant, so The Ring's editorial board can't depose him as champion, which the article seems to imply, because he is not their champion.

2) His #1 ranking is set by The Ring's Ratings Panel, whose members are completely independent of The Ring (and include Cliff Rold of boxingscene). The editorial board can't demote Hopkins in the rankings, as that would destroy the independence of the Ratings Panel, and the integrity of their rules. And by destroying the independence of the Ratings Panel it would in fact give strong ammunition to those who claim wrongly that their ratings are biased and commercially driven.

3) They can't sanction a fight between the #2 and the #3, however desirable, as that would break their rules. It's not comparable with sanctioning fights between the #1 and #3, because that is completely in line with their rules. For them to change their rules for a single fight would completely destroy the integrity of their rules.

The only solution is for the Ratings Panel, which is independent of The Ring, to demote Bhop to #2 in the rankings. The #1 vs. #3 rule could then be applied. But for that to happen, you need to lobby all the members of the Ratings Panel, not The Ring itself.

Why not email your article to all 37 members of the panel, Jake?

[Dave Rado]

wow, I took so long to reply, you actually deleted your message in that span. Sorry. But I hope you understood/-stand the point I was trying to make.

I deleted that post because I was writing a more carefully thought out response in its place, which I've now posted - sorry for the confusion. I understand your point but I think it ignores the need for the Ratings Panel to remain completely independent of The Ring. See my other post that I've just posted.

[JakeNDaBox]

I think there's a bit of confusion here.

1) Bhop isn't The Ring champion, the title is vacant, so The Ring's editorial board can't depose him as champion, which the article seems to imply, because he is not their champion.

I never said he was the champion, I clearly stated he was their top rated contender.

2) His #1 ranking is set by The Ring's Ratings Panel, whose members are completely independent of The Ring (and include Cliff Rold of boxingscene). The editorial board can't demote Hopkins in the rankings, as that would destroy the independence of the Ratings Panel, and the integrity of their rules. And by destroying the independence of the Ratings Panel it would in fact give strong ammunition to those who claim wrongly that their ratings are biased and commercially driven.

Why can't they demote him? He hasn't fought since last October. He hasn't fought a LHW since last April - and that against Calzaghe, a career SMW. He hasn't fought anyone actually ranked at LHW since winning their belt from Tarver three years ago. He's 1-2 lifetime against actual light heavyweights, has been inactive since October and will most likely go through 2009 without having a fight (in the ring, anyway). They've made a common practice of dropping fighters due to inactivity. Why should Hopkins be any different?

3) They can't sanction a fight between the #2 and the #3, however desirable, as that would break their rules. It's not comparable with sanctioning fights between the #1 and #3, because that is completely in line with their rules. For them to change their rules for a single fight would completely destroy the integrity of their rules.

I explained this part in an earlier post, but will assumed you missed it while filling out this entry. Please re-read.

The only solution is for the Ratings Panel, which is independent of The Ring, to demote Bhop to #2 in the rankings. The #1 vs. #3 rule could then be applied. But for that to happen, you need to lobby all the members of the Ratings Panel, not The Ring itself.

That's exactly what I was suggesting all along, that Hopkins shouldn't be #1 by the time the fight rolls around (most likely November, which will have Hopkins out of the ring for 13 months and most likely without a fight of his own in the hopper).

Why not email your article to all 37 members of the panel, Jake?

Because that's not how their ratings work. The only people with any input in the actual rankings are full-time staffers. The 37 members you reference are part of an ADVISORY board. They're used in just that very capacity.

[warp1432]

It’s impossible to justify Hopkins ranking as the number one light heavyweight in the world unless the rating is based on his career as a whole. It’s an even less convincing argument when by his own admission, there isn’t a relevant light heavyweight left that Hopkins even considers fighting.

I disagree. I'll justify it.

Hopkins, the champion, lost a close decision to Calzaghe to keep his ranking. This alone you could argue, wouldn't be enough. This further was strengthened when Hopkins dominated Pavlik. It might have been a catchweight of 170, but that's still the Light Heavyweight limit. Also Pavlik has the frame of carrying up the weight well.

Not to mention, Hopkins' win over Pavlik has been more impressive then anything Dawson has done late. Dawson certainly didn't look more impressive against Tarver (either time) then Hopkins did. He didn't even give out a bigger beating and Hopkins-Tarver was 3 years ago. Dawson also didn't look as impressive against johnson as Hopkins did either, but that was a prime Bhop, so that's not fair to judge specifically.

Based off a close decision loss, a dominant win over Pavlik, and looking better against Dawson's competition as of late, was/is enough for him to be ranked over Dawson.

HOWEVER, I do agree with the general point of the article. Hopkins doesn't seem to have any interest in fighting Dawson or the winner of this fight (or in general, besides maybe Adamek). I don't think they should strip him of the #1 ranking, but they should ask him if they can or ask him if he is going to retire. They asked one of their champions (I think it was Manny P at 130) to vacate the title and that person did, so Hopkins might be willing to give up his number 1 spot.

[IMDAZED]

I disagree. I'll justify it.

Hopkins, the champion, lost a close decision to Calzaghe to keep his ranking. This alone you could argue, wouldn't be enough. This further was strengthened when Hopkins dominated Pavlik. It might have been a catchweight of 170, but that's still the Light Heavyweight limit. Also Pavlik has the frame of carrying up the weight well.

Not to mention, Hopkins' win over Pavlik has been more impressive then anything Dawson has done late. Dawson certainly didn't look more impressive against Tarver (either time) then Hopkins did. He didn't even give out a bigger beating and Hopkins-Tarver was 3 years ago. Dawson also didn't look as impressive against johnson as Hopkins did either, but that was a prime Bhop, so that's not fair to judge specifically.

Based off a close decision loss, a dominant win over Pavlik, and looking better against Dawson's competition as of late, was/is enough for him to be ranked over Dawson.

HOWEVER, I do agree with the general point of the article. I don't think they should strip him of the #1 ranking, but they should ask him if they can or ask him if he is going to retire. They asked one of their champions (I think it was Manny P at 130) to vacate the title and that person did, so Hopkins might be willing to give up his number 1 spot.

warp, just because he defended Pavlik at 170 doesn't make Pavlik a light heavyweight. Nor Winky. Hell, it was Calzaghe's first fight at 175 too. Maybe if he defended it against a light heavyweight contender I'd be inclined to agree with you. I'm not. Good points though.